I haven't heard the bells ring, but I think it's 530 and we have a quorum, and I'd like to call this
meeting to order. And if you would kindly call the roll, Ms. Nestergellen. Margaret Clements. Here.
Skip Daley. Oh, he's here. Guy Lofman. Here. Jeff Morris.
And Pamela Davidson. All right. So we have four members in person in a quorum. And would you kindly
introduce the evidence Jackie. I'd like to introduce the following items into the evidence the Monroe
County Development Ordinance has adopted and amended the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has adopted
and amended the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals Rules of Procedure has adopted and amended and
the cases that were legally advertised and scheduled for hearing on tonight's agenda.
That's our motion to approve. I would like to move that we approve the evidence as just outlined for
this evening. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes
is a vote to approve. Skip Daly? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Guy Loftman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes.
Motion is approved. Four to zero.
One item on the agenda that's been continued by the petitioner, and that is for a property at 6611 South
Rockport Road. So if you're here for that or dialed in for that, we will not be hearing that tonight.
But it has been continued by the petitioner. And other than that, is there a motion to approve tonight's
agenda? I move to approve tonight's agenda as indicated. Second.
And moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda as published. A vote yes is a vote to approve. Pamela
Davidson. Yes. Guy Loftman. Yes. Margaret Clements. Yes. Skip Daley. Yes. Motion is approved four to
zero. OK. And we have one set of minutes that are subject to our approval tonight, and that's for the
November 5th, 2025 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? I move that we approve the minutes of November 5th
It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes for November 5th, 2025. A vote yes is a vote to
approve. Guy Loftman? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Motion is approved three to
zero. I'll note for the record, Skip Daily just exited the room, but we have enough people to approve
the minutes. Okay. There's no administrative business and we'll go directly to new business. And the
first item on
new business on our agenda is VAR-25-81, and that's the stallion eco area two, one acre contiguous buildable
area variance to chapter 823 concerning one 5.54 plus or minus acre parcel in Perry Township, section
35 at 6050 South Airline Road. And I believe Mr. Brown will be reviewing this with us.
So the purpose of this request is the petitioner is proposing to convert an existing single-family residence
into a tourist home or cabin. It has been found that the subject property does not meet one of the standards
in Chapter 823 regarding the environmental constraints overlay area two, however. There is an exemption
in the ordinance from the standard for the construction of a single-family residence, but it does not
apply to the conversion
of single family residences to another use. At this time, the petitioner is not proposing any further
development and is only pursuing a permit to change the use of the property. So part of the reason for
the one acre of contiguous buildable area in the eco area is to ensure development can occur in areas
that do not lead to runoff of soil, excluding setbacks.
The petitioner has very minimal buildable area existing, less than 0.1 acre when excluding required
front yard setback standards. The petitioner did remove and set a new modular home on the property in
2025, receiving a certificate of occupancy for that in 2025. However, that was replacing the footprint
of an existing family residence that was damaged.
And since it was still under the use of single-family residents, they were able to qualify for certain
exemptions. The septic and home area would have otherwise required buildable area variances for being
located in steep slope area, as well as the requirements for the one-acre contiguous buildable area.
Now that the new home has been complete and is ready for occupancy, the petitioner would like to proceed
with converting it to a short-term rental. Have they received an original building permit for a tourist
home or cabin originally?
the additional variance for a slope disturbance would have been required as the structure would not
have qualified for an exemption. And here are the eco standards as listed for area two. The one that
they do not meet is number four. Staff has measured that the property only has about 0.26 plus or minus
acres of area under 15 percent slope. Only of this about 0.6
acres is in the front area setback, leaving only about 0.1 acres of buildable area meeting setback standards.
The area of the buildable area is not located near the existing home and is located at the south property
line. And here are the areas in question. And here are maps showing the areas in question. Viewpoints
of the area using
using EagleView. And here is a view of the new home as it stands currently. As you can see on the right
side of the image, it does run off its steep slope fairly quickly. And here is an image of the site
plan that the petitioner used for the building permits, as well as what was submitted for the variance.
Staff recommends approval of VAR-20
5-81 as practical difficulties have not been demonstrated. The lot cannot meet the residential area
requirement. This variance would be needed for any new development on the subject property unless an
administrative subdivision is pursued. I will take any questions. I think we'll hear directly from the
petitioner and then from the public and we might have questions in the future.
If Mr. Stallion is here, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, then I'll swear you in.
I don't know if I pronounced your name correctly. Devlin Stallion. Thank you, Mr. Stallion. I'm sorry,
I can't hear you. I'm just kidding. I'm going to help her. OK, thank you.
Yes, and would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth?
Yes. Thank you. Well, you'll have 15 minutes to make your presentation and your petition to us. 15 minutes.
OK. I apologize. I didn't know that that was part of the process. I thought this would have
been pre-reviewed. It is. But we want to hear from you. I'm sorry if I'm not clear enough or if my words
aren't the right thing. But basically, we'd like to hear from you what you're seeking and why you would
like our approval.
OK, no problem. So my name is Devlin Stallion. My wife and I bought this property shortly after COVID.
I'm originally from southern Oklahoma. I live down a dead end road, rural area. It's dirt road. This
is a paved road. And I've got three daughters. And we just wanted to buy the property to have an escape,
to go out into the natural area and things of that nature. It resonates with me personally.
as a chance to build something for me and my family, like financially as well as a place for us to enjoy
each other's time. We thought of the property to purchase it as a chance for income property as well,
so we're not just straight W-2 employees, that kind of thing, just all together. We saw the property
listing and we just
I knew it was 100% the right choice, the perfect location. It was beautiful. We bought it not knowing
all of the regulations and things like that here in Monroe County. But we've become much more familiar
with the assistance of Mr. Brown and the highway department. I met with Jack as well on one occasion.
But as part of the making it a short-term rental, the opportunity
get some additional income, we thought while the value to us was personally like the natural habitat,
like it's five acres that goes down into the creek bottom. It's just a beautiful, serene, quiet place.
We thought that people would also like to enjoy that and we'd like to maintain that and build it as
a quiet retreat for people to escape.
Whenever we bought it, shortly after we bought it, we put tens of thousands of dollars into it to make
the old structure habitable. And shortly after that, a massive red oak tree had some root rot and just
actually crushed it all the way down. It didn't crush it, but it damaged it all the way down to the
limestone foundation. It was a really quirky, unique little cabin that had been originally built in
the 1920s. It had a lot of character.
Yeah, but then everything changed whenever the tree destroyed it. And then going through that insurance,
the insurance process and the rebuild, that's when we actually learned that you had to change it from
tourist home, from residential. The use change is the whole purpose here. Sorry. Yeah.
So we're going through the process, the formal process of converting it to tourist home slash cabin.
And it's our understanding that the, what is it, the CDO, the ordinance, like that's one of the primary
allowed uses for it with restrictions or specific conditions. And we plan to just keep it in that same
to maintain the character of the road, the rural area. And from our understanding, the variance that
we need for it to successfully and officially be transferred is just, it's more of an administrative
thing, is the way I interpret it, because we're not building a new structure, or making a new structure
with septic and all that.
That's all I've got for here, but I'm open to answer any of your questions. Okay, thank you. My colleagues
might have questions for you. I have two questions. The picture that we looked at of the structure,
which you put on the same footprint as your damaged tree. Hey, no one was in the house when the tree
fell. No, no, no. Thank goodness for that. Oh, that's a terrible story. Anyway, this driveway looks
pretty rough, or the entrance area. Does it still look like that?
It still looks like this currently. They just finished placing it, and there was a bunch of issues with
the... This concrete thing here, that's a cistern, and that was damaged in the demolition. This right
here is going to... It was originally a fire pit area, and underneath it, there is a... What did they
call it? A water right of way. It's a drainage pipe.
Mr. and Mrs. Young's property that's on the other side of the road. Yeah. The driveway is actually down
by the garage. So this is not the access point. That's not a driveway. Oh, wonderful. That looks pretty
rough. It does look like you get a good amount of erosion in that area. I would think that would be
true. I can see that from that picture. The highway department's going to come in and put a culvert
in there and gravel it, and we're going to make it more of a patio.
but the only formal driveway is right in front of the garage or parking area. And I met with the highway
department representative yesterday and he made it, I just wanted to have an understanding of what exactly
isn't required for it, so. Thank you, that's what I wanted to know. Are there any other questions for
Mr. Stallion? Not at this time for me. Bailey, do you have any questions for him or for staff?
Do you know, I just want to confirm with Mr. Brown, recommending approval on this? Yes, practical
difficulties have been demonstrated or staff feels that they have. But it would seem, but. Yeah, the
lot could not be expanded without an administrative subdivision being pursued and this variance would
be needed for any new developments. Repeat that last sentence. This variance would be needed for any
new development. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Stallion. I'm going to turn to the public. If there's anyone who is speaking against
it, you'll have an opportunity to return. Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like
to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand on teams.
Do we see anyone? Are there members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to this petition?
Please come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
So if you would lower the mic so that we can hear you and state your name. My name is Shannon Robinson.
I reside at 6110 South Airline Road. And would you raise your right hand? And do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You'll have three minutes to express
your opposition to this petition. Thank you.
My name is Shannon Robinson. I reside at 61 Chin South Airline Road, Bloomington, Indiana 47401. I've
lived at this address since September of 1997. I have no ill will toward the petitioners here, but I
oppose the variance from residential to tourism slash cabin for a number of reasons. First of all, Airline
Road is more of a lane than it is a road. Two vehicles cannot pass on Airline Road without somebody
getting off the pavement.
because either both cars have to get slightly off, or one car's got to pull over and let somebody go
by. In order to get the 6050 address that they want to have this Airbnb on, basically, you have to go
through four 90-degree turns, four of them. And two of them completely blind, even with the foliage
off in the winter like it is now. The other two with the foliage on are not so bad. On the side of this
road are steeper beans.
entries. It's a very wooded, wooded road. There are only nine residents located on Airline Road. It's
about a mile long down the road. The residents know and understand the road and the need to use caution
on this road. I do not believe out of state unknown
travelers, unknown strangers would be familiar with it and know that necessity to use that caution on
these curves. I think that this is really a safety issue for the residents and even the potential tenants
of this Airbnb. Airline Road dead ends at my house. And so if anyone goes by their address at 6050 and
keeps going on down the road, be it dark, be it their light, be it they missed it,
they've got to turn around in my driveway to get back out. The county maintains the road down to my
driveway, such as it is. I mean, I'm not blaming the county. I love the county for maintaining my road.
But it is, it's, we have very, very little traffic on the road. And I do not want strangers that on
my property, particularly considering it's absolutely isolated location.
They were operating Airbnb already before they ever provided for this variance. They were operating
it under the name of the headless goose cabin. And they had it advertised on Airbnb. They have it advertised
on Basecamp. They have it advertised on Veriboo. And they were saying, we take up to six occupants.
Six occupants. That's what it says on their own advertising here. Sleep six. Sleep six. Not only that.
They also had it where you would have outdoor fire pit, open burning, open burning at ground level where
they had a fire pit. And they have photographs of it on their advertising where they have this ground
level fire pit, open burning. This is a very wooded area. I don't know that people from out of state
or people visitors would abide by no burn.
Ordinances or things of that nature. Thank you. Your three minutes is up So thank you for your test.
I did make a video of the road
for you to watch. I cannot get signed in. I cannot play it. But I think that if you either drive the
road or watch a video of the road, and you'll see my concerns. I thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Robertson.
Thank you. OK, thank you. And I understand there's a gentleman who would like to speak in opposition
to the petition if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in. And then I'll swear you in. And
you'll have to adjust the microphone so that, is there a pen there? Yes.
I took me a second to find it though. I'm high, thank you. Would you raise the microphone so that we
can, and also your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you, and please state your name. My name is Brad Ehrman. Thank you, Mr. Ehrman. I also live
at 6110 South Airline Road since September of 1997. As my wife mentioned, it is not a neighborhood in
any conventional sense. It is a one-lane road that weaves back into the woods. It offers privacy and
security. I can't speak for my neighbors, but that's why we bought our property.
a commercial business operating in the middle of it, this road erodes our privacy and our security and
our seclusion. And for that reason, I oppose this variance. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask my
colleagues if they have questions. I have a few questions.
You know, we heard your wife testify that it's been operated as a business. It's been on the internet
and so on. Do you know if there have been any accidents on the road since any traffic mishaps with those
users? Not that I know of. To the best of my knowledge, the answer is no. OK, that was my most important
question. OK. And then we'll hear now from Mr. Stallion.
If you would kindly come back to the podium, you're still under oath, and you have five minutes to rebut.
Devlin Stallion back at the mic. Yes. We did have the business running for a handful of months, completely
oblivious to the rules and regulations. But going through the process, became more than aware
going through making every intent to be completely reading all I get with the county health department
things of that nature completely above board. I don't know what you don't know what you don't know.
But now we definitely do with the concern for the the safety of the road. She was correct like we did
previously have it to where we could have six
residents, people staying, but we have addressed it in our letter to the board saying we would only
allow one car and two adults. And if they have kids, I don't feel like we could restrict that if that
was the case. But I would contend that the Airbnb with the restriction of one car would most, it's all
subjective, it's all speculation, but I think most, it would probably be less traffic than
having a, like if somebody were to buy it from like Indy, they could bring three, four cars up here
every weekend if they wanted to, but we have a strict restriction of one car. I was a law enforcement
in the military for 12 years. Worked in five different countries and most traffic accidents are like
stop signs and like in parking lots and stuff.
I think people have their wits about them enough to see, like, you're going over a hill and around a
turn. You just got to slow down. So I don't really have the same concern for the safety concern that's
there. We'd be more than happy to make it very blunt in anything that's provided on the business
advertisements and, hey, this is down to one lane around. You have to go slow. Be careful and things
of that nature.
And then I don't know what to say about their security and safety concerns, but it is a public road.
I think that's all I have to say about that, but if you have any questions, more than happy to answer
them. Questions for Mr. Stallion? Yeah, so as is, you could use this for your own personal residence.
We could, or we could rent it out traditionally.
Right, but you bought it as a retreat and you could go out there on the weekends or anytime you wanted
to and use it for the... And we still can and we do. We've stayed out there. Right, if you haven't got
it rented out or you just want to have it for yourselves that weekend, you rent it and then sometimes
you rent it out depending on whether you want to use it. Did you buy it with the intention of using
it for rental?
for both purposes, personal and like I like to be out, like we live in a neighborhood in town now and
it's just a really nice little escape. Right, I get the escape. That's not controversial. But when we
did purchase it, we did want to rent it out. Right, and it didn't strike you as something that might
be wise to do to see if a commercial use at that remote location would be something that might be regulated.
I mean, no, sir, like where I'm from, like just rural Oklahoma, like those things don't exist. Those
type of regulations that I've come to learn in the last year since we started the rebuild, right? Okay,
thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Well, I return to us for Mr.
Daley. Oh, Mr. Daley, do you have a question for Mr. Stallion? I do.
And thank you for your service. You should beat me to it. But the sentiment remains. Quick question
for you. The driveway. Yes. Can you walk us through if Mr. Brown could find a shot of where that driveway
is? I can explain it with this picture. Pardon? Which driveway are we talking about? There's only one
driveway. Yeah. One parking area.
Right. Could you point to where that is, as if Mr. Brown can find it appropriate? He has the drawing.
There we go. That perfectly shows it here. There's the garage, and there's a 25 foot wide pad there
that goes about 20 to 23 feet deep off of the road. OK. And how many vehicles does that
driveway appear to? It could hold two, but we would restrict it to one if we were renting it out as
a short terminal. And was that pad there with the house that got destroyed that was already existing?
Yes, ma'am. So all you've done is rebuild in the original footprint from a weather-related insurance
claim, and now you're
Backtracking to say, oh, whoops, we need to make sure that we have the right variance in order to do
short-term rental on this. Is that summing up? I mean, that could be one assessment, but that wasn't
our intent. We didn't learn about it until we were doing the rebuild.
I have a question for staff. I mean, this isn't a use variance. No, it isn't. This is just a variance
on the slope, so it has really nothing to do with the use as a short-term rental, if I understand. Is
that correct, Mr. Brown? So they would be able to continue using it as a single-family residence.
if they did not get this variance. This variance was activated by the fact that they did wish to convert
it to a short-term rental tourist home slash cabin. And the variance is for the one acre of contiguous
buildable area, which would be needed for any further development on the slot, say an expansion of a
structure or new structure. Okay, thank you. Correct. However, in all objectivity, the objection from
the member of the community
was based on a safety issue based on the usage. So I do feel it's relevant to at least discuss. But
I think realistically, I think the point that was going through my head and the point that was made
in testimony by the petitioner that there is
significantly less traffic caused by his intended use of this as opposed to a 24-7 residency with two
and a half vehicles, two and a half kids, and a couple of animals, right? We're looking at short-term
rentals, and those are limited largely to weekends if you follow the industry. So I think the point
that he made
really addresses the one concern that was brought up of safety, which would be relevant to what our jobs are.
And I would add to that as a postscript, we heard his neighbor say, if you know the road, you know the
road. That is very, very true. This whole county, this whole area is filled with long and winding roads
with 90 degree, you drive out to Gosport and it's like that with 90 degree turns. So we understand that.
You are right. People that are unfamiliar with it, there's always a risk. But there's always a risk
with people who are familiar with it, frankly. So it's just part of the topography that we all enjoy
and love about this area more than anything. And irrelevant to our decision, I will trust, and I'll
leave this rhetorically, that you will
go back over based on concerns of neighborhoods regardless of this decision and make sure your communication
with potential potential renters is based on the utmost safety and concern of the neighborhood. Yes.
Can I add a PS to that? Your neighbor said they're going to drive by that house and miss it and drive
down the street and turn around in my driveway. Is it possible to make the address seeable? As somebody
who drives around constantly in strange cities looking for house numbers, it is terrible how badly marked
they generally are. So if you can help with that concern that that is less likely, that may be a good thing.
can absolutely do that. And the property is like, it's like you saw it with like a, it's got a yellow
door, like they're going to know they're there. There'll be lighting and things, but we can definitely
put like 60, 50 airline. You're here. Yeah. Let me follow up just a little bit. If it weren't, there's
no restriction on you on this use in this, in this zoning district. The only there's standards, there
are several standards that they have to meet.
But it's permitted upon meeting those standards. Okay. And do they meet all of those standards except
the slope or do they meet all the standards and the slope is only because they want to change the use?
The latter. Okay. And also I will note it says no more than two guests per guest room. So I think once
they have it up and running, if they are still renting it for
say six guests, and they only have one guest room because it is a one-bedroom house, that would be against
that standard. So we could enforce on that if we needed to. So regarding the driveway and the traffic.
Given that it's one bedroom, there's a limit to two people who could stay there. Essentially, yes. With
kids out of the living room and pull out. No, I'm... Is it two guests?
We do make exceptions for dependence of those guests. So if they have two guests and one child, we would
not enforce on that. OK. And so the reason they need this is because they're trying to make a change.
If they wanted to change the footprint, they would need something like this. Would this change allow
them to change the footprint? They would still need a buildable area variance in addition, because the
house is on steep slopes.
So they would be coming back for another variance. They would need this variance first, but then they
would still have to come back for a particular development in this deep slope area. Okay. I think I've
got the picture clear and Mr. Daley seems to have some. I was the petitioner was requesting permission
to speak and I was suggesting that he might want to hold off based on the nature of his
inquiry until after we make a decision. Got it. And may I add, Mr. Laughman, we are not really concerned
about the slopes because they had a weather catastrophe and used the same footprint. What we are concerned
is the size of the lot. So it cannot be changed, the size of that lot. Right. Right. OK. OK.
It's got nuances, and I'm satisfied that I have a reasonable grasp on them. Well, is there a motion
then? I'm going to move that we approve variance 25-81, the stallion, echo area two, one area contiguous
buildable area variance to chapter 823, because practical difficulties has
been met, the lot cannot meet the residence area requirement. And I am very compelled by the comments
of Mr. Daley that such a use is probably less of a use than occupied residency or full-time rental,
which is a plus for neighbor concerns. I'm going to make a quick recommendation. No, a recommendation
before anybody seconds or discusses your motion.
that we check in with Mr. Morris because he's online and I don't know if this kind of new format, if
how easy it is to see whether or not he, so Mr. Morris, if you're there, do you have anything to add
before somebody might make a motion? His hand is raised and I think tech services has to unmute him
and he has to unmute himself.
And I don't think he was in the roll call, was he? He wasn't at that time, but if he's here now. He
wasn't at the time, but now he's here before the first vote. Tech Services, can I go ahead and allow
the mic for Mr. Morris? Or, oh, you already have. Yeah. OK. OK, thanks. It looks like I can speak now,
Jackie, but I still, oh, now I can turn my camera on. Sorry. Did you have anything you wanted to add, Jeff? OK.
I was just gonna say, for the record, I've actually been here the whole time that had been unable to
unmute or turn my camera on. So thank you, Mr. Daly, for recognizing that. But my main comment is really
centered around the conversation that we've already had, and that is the fact that I do have concerns about
this use being an Airbnb for the safety aspect of the road and just the fact that this is a
small neighborhood that you're bringing different people into on a regular basis, potentially. But I
think basically the fact that this variance is really about the slope, that's what I'm talking about.
So that's my only comment.
All right, so my motion, anybody wants to second it? I will second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded
to approve VAR-25-81, which is the stallion eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area to chapter
823. A vote yes is a vote to approve the variance.
Guy Lofman. I want to explain that I have great sympathy with the concerns of the opponents of the neighbors,
but a tourist home is allowed in this. And the history of this property is consistent with that.
And it is, if somebody just bought it and moved in with their family,
it would certainly be more traffic. Maybe fewer people ending up down in the petitioner's driveway and
the opponent's driveway, but I find that the variance is appropriate and vote in favor of it. If Morris?
Yes. Pamela Davidson? Yes. Margaret Clements? Yes. Skip Daly?
And I will add some commentary as well. As valid as the concerns are of the objecting parties, it is
not pertinent within our jurisdiction of voting. So yes. The motion is approved five to zero. Well,
I want to thank you. I want to thank Mr.
The Robinson, your neighbors, I really want to thank you for coming to speak and expressing your concerns
because I think the result will be better. Mr. Stallion has heard your concerns and there have been
recommendations by the Board of Zoning Appeals as far as signage for the Airbnb.
We just hope that everyone can live together as good neighbors and that everyone's happy with the outcome.
Thank you so much. And safe as well. Yes. Thank you for coming out tonight. Okay. We move on to items
number two and three.
on the agenda, and this is the Willard Eco Area 2 concerning a one acre contiguous buildable area variance
to Chapter 823, and the Willard Eco Area 2 15% slope encroachment variance to Chapter 823 concerning
one 8.24 plus or minus acre parcel in Polk Township Section 20 at 8900 South Roberts Road. And I believe
Mr. Brown will review this with us.
Thank you. So the purpose of this petition is that the petitioner is proposing to establish a residential
accessory structure in the form of a 12 by 20 foot shed on the property, along with a proposed retaining
wall adjacent to it. In addition, the petitioner has also applied for an attached 12 by 18 awning by
the home within buildable area, but that's not the subject of this variance.
It has been found that the subject property does not meet two of the standards of the chapter 823 regarding
the environmental constraints overlay area two. Hence, this variance petition is required. There is
an exception in the ordinance from the standard from the construction of a single family residence,
but it is not applied to accessory structures or additions. The petitioner's property contains very
little buildable area. The home, driveway, and garden areas currently take up the entire buildable area
on the property that is
close to the road, leaving no other area for development. The septic system is existing and is in front
of the house. The property does not meet two of the four requirements listed for properties in the ECO
Area 2. The first is the 15% slope requirements. It has been estimated that the proposed structure and
retaining wall will be completely in an area between 18.1% slope and
24.99% slope. The other is that each dwelling unit must have at least one acre of contiguous buildable
area. Staff has measured that the largest amount of contiguous buildable area under 15% slope is only
an estimated 0.49 acres, but that 0.49 acres is on the southeastern end of the property, nowhere near
the proposed building site, and accessing it would require either an easement to South
Holland Ridge or a driveway to cross areas over 25 percent slope or greater. This variance is the minimum
needed to require, allow any further development even within the buildable area such as the proposed
awning. If any further slope is proposed in the steep slopes area, the ordinance will require the owner
to return to the Board of Zoning Appeals for further variance approvals. Furthermore, approving this
variance does not allow the petitioner ability to develop further into steep slope areas
beyond what they are proposing for the current site plan. And here is the location and zoning map. Here
is the comprehensive plan and site conditions map. Here is an eagle view photo of the property. And
for the images, on the left is the existing home, and on the right is the proposed area for the shed.
And here are site maps that were submitted by the petitioner. The one on the left was the original site
plan that I believe was included in the packet. Since then, we have obtained the image on the right,
which shows the location of the shed. It's a bit clearer for digital attachments. It also attempted
to show a slope over a 50-foot run across the building site using a transit tool.
And staff recommends approval of VAR-25-2082A. As practical difficulties have been demonstrated, the
lot cannot meet the contiguous buildable area requirements. This variance would be needed for any new
development on the subject property unless the administrative subdivision is pursued. And even if the
land were to be purchased to add the property, it would not add buildable area near the existing built-out
structures on the lot.
However, we do recommend denial of VAR-25-82B as practical difficulties have now been demonstrated by
the petitioner. And I will take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I think we'll hear from the petitioner
first. And yes, sir, if you would kindly come to the podium and sign in, and then I'll swear you in.
Would you state your name for the record? Christopher Salem Willard. Mr. Willard, would you raise your
right hand? And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do.
Thank you. You have 15 minutes to review your requests with us. OK. Well, thank you everyone for being
here this evening to hear my petition. For those of you all who don't know me, I am a local farmer.
I have another property on South Roberts Road as well, 9127, where I have a small organic farm.
that my wife and I operate together. Prior to that, I also was a landscape architect and designer under
a business called Bread and Roses Gardens that I co-owned with my business partner, Jonas Carpenter.
And so over the 10 years that we ran that business together, I have since backed away so that I can
take care of the farm exclusively. But during that time, I installed
everything you can imagine in terms of a landscape, fences, hardscaping, raised beds, retaining walls.
I've done a lot of work in this area. So I'm coming, just saying that to let you know my background
and to let you know where I'm coming from. I have a very simple request that you're here to
review. I would just like to put a small garden shed on my property and I understand that the property
is very sloped. I understand that better than most people because I have worked very hard to try to
make a garden work on this property. So and the slope is a definite issue. I'd like to also add that
This is the absolute last thing I ever want to do on this property. I am not asking for a variance so
that I can try to go up this crazy slope. What you can see as you go behind the house further towards
the woods, it is steep. And I am not that young anymore. I do not have any interest in trying to develop
anything. All I'd like to do is put a garden shed. And I picked, as you can see here, the last remaining
flat, reasonable,
to be considered space to put in this shed. Doing so will help me improve my business. It will give
me the ability to store my tools, which currently are either in the barn. They're all over the place,
because I don't have places to put them. So I'm hoping that you will hear my petition and understand
that I'm trying to do everything that I can to be
As respectful to the land, I'm not trying to build something on the insane slopes. I'm working with
what I have. And this is what I have that's left, where I can expand slightly, ever so slightly. I have
additional copies of what I measured myself, which is the cross-sectional slope, if I may.
present them to the board. Thank you. We need you to speak in the microphone. And just for the record,
moving forward, should you have something else to pass out to us? Just ask for permission to approach.
Thanks. So as you can see, I've had many conversations with Mr. Brown. I've been trying to do everything
as above board as possible. I did my own measurements because, as I said, I have done this in the past
as part of my profession. While I understand that the property in general does not meet these standards
because of the slopes, the extreme slopes are all back here behind the property.
And I have actually other pictures. I don't know if we're able to see them from the attachments that
I sent in, just to further illustrate how flat that ground is where I'm proposing to build. I mean,
I basically don't have any options. And I'm trying to do everything by the book. And that's why I'm
here before you today to make this request, because I do feel like it is a reasonable request.
I'm happy to answer any questions. I would like to add in regards to I understand why these why these
restrictions are in place. Here's a picture where you can see I parked my truck right next to the proposed
building site. And while back there it is sloped I'm trying to work on the flat ground. I actually as
a part of our farm have multiple
grants open with the USDA, the National Resource Conservation Service, and the Soil and Water Conservation
District. That is to say, I go above and beyond in all of my work to make sure I respect the land and
take care of it. I would never do anything that would jeopardize further erosion. I'm a no-till farmer.
We don't even use tractors.
Everything is done by hand. And yes, and so this is further illustration of how flat the ground is around
the actual proposed shed. While I understand the rest of the property is extremely sloped in places,
I would never imagine trying to build anywhere like that. My only, like I said, this is what I have
to work with. And I thank you for hearing my spiel.
I'm a little nervous, obviously, but thank you. And I'm more than happy to take any questions and anything
else that I can do to help you with making your decision today. Hang on just a second. Mr. Brown, are
there any other areas on that property where a shed could be constructed? And my second question is,
what is the size of the shed for this picture?
I can't tell proportionally compared to the house and so on. Is it a large shed, a medium size?
12 by 20. Okay, thank you. And I can happily adjust the size if that is an issue as well. So Mr. Brown,
is there any other area on that property to build? Based on the lidar that we saw in Beacon, the existing
structures, driveway and garden take up all of the
buildable area that is adjacent to the road. As mentioned previously, there is some area of non-steep
slope in the southeastern portion of the property, but that would require either an easement to access
it or possibly even a driveway that crosses the areas of 25% slope or greater. Which would be a lot
of disruption. Okay. Mr. Daley.
Questions are for Mr. Brown as well. One, did the petitioner provide a, maybe I missed it, an image
of what the property would look like with the structure on it? They did provide a site plan as shown
on screen. Just a two-dimensional, not like an image with, hey, here's the shed, and this is what it
looks like with
They didn't do it yet. All right. My other question for you is, you mentioned a recommendation of denial
of part two of this for practical difficulties. I'm not challenging you here. I'm just trying to understand
what was in your head, A through D. Is that right? Are we in chapter 850 on this?
Sorry, I was pulling up the building permit side view of the accessory structure. I'm a little bit behind,
but this is the side view that the conditioner applied for with the shed. All right. What letter of
the practical difficulties did you feel didn't work out? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
just trying to understand. I'm looking through the practical difficulties,
I just want to know if I'm missing something. Could I just refer us to the packet? First of all, the
findings of Mr. Brown were that the property is proximate to the Lake Monroe and is located
in the environmental constraints overlay area 2.
And eco area regulations exist to protect the water quality and supply of Lake Monroe. And the county
development ordinance only allows an exception from the one acre contiguous buildable area and the 15%
slope encroachments for the establishment of a new single family residence. So if this were a new single
family residence being proposed, it's possible that we could consider
the variance, but since it's not, it's an accessory structure, we're not necessarily entitled to review
the variance for the accessory structure. Am I correct? I think it's the other way around. So the exception
under the code is only for new single-family residences, but the section about the exception
would only apply if they didn't have any other buildable area. I think the question that Mr. Daley has
is under the findings under 841-4, there's a section under three, and we did provide findings under
A, which is the one acre contiguous and support, but it looks like maybe the question is what
finding is negative for B, which I don't see that is in the report, but stated in the PowerPoint presentation
is just that under the definition of practical difficulties, it's always difficult for staff to find
practical difficulties if the property's already built out as a primary use and they want to add additional
accessory uses such as, in this case, the
The petitioner has provided you testimony why there's a practical difficulty in not having a shed. But
in other cases, some people may come before you for a swimming pool or a rather large pole barn. And
that would be a little bit under your discretion or review of the findings to determine if that's a
practical difficulty. And to piggyback on what you just said, landscaping business, farming business,
gardening business,
You do need a place to accumulate your tools in that situation. That makes so much sense in terms of
the use of the property already. And by the caretaking, we are well served in your depth of experience
that you've described. The retaining wall, does that help with the erosion? Because we're all concerned
about the erosion into the lake.
Is that a plus in terms of reducing that risk? I'm unaware, I don't know. I would say that since the,
I believe the retaining wall is going on the side where the ground is sloped up, so I'm sure it's also
in part to probably divert some water from going directly into this structure, but the petitioner could.
I believe Mr. Lofman had a, yeah.
I'm looking at this diagram that you gave to us, and if I'm interpreting it correctly, you've got the
southwest to northeast axis there, which shows 8.167 degree slope within 50 feet of the center of the cabin.
Can I revise that slightly? So what I did is I did, I was told I needed to measure a 50 foot section
by the planning department. So I did a cross section where I put the transit in the center of the proposed
site and went 25 feet in each cardinal direction based on the orientation that I would like to build
the shed. So it is a 50 foot run from the top southwest corner to the bottom northeast corner, for example.
Right. So that's a 49 inch rise over 50 foot. And that's 8.167 percent slope. Yes. However. Yes. However.
However the actual site where the shed is planned where I am hoping to be building the shed is actually
practically flat by all by all purposes. Like that's why I provided multiple
photographic evidence of this evidence. Mr. Brown, I hear evidence that while the general area is steeper,
that this particular 50 foot by 50 foot square is not within the prohibited slope.
Does what I just said make sense that a small area might be buildable, might be usable, whereas the
area around it, it might be too steep? It is possible that the area around it is too steep. However,
my understanding is that the measurements should be 50 feet on each side rather than the 25 that was
done. That is how we do it.
That is what is stated in the county development ordinance as how slope is to be measured. Okay. There
is the missing piece of information that I needed is that this drawing needed to go out 50 feet. If
you went out 50 feet, do you think it would be too steep under the ordinance or
I'd like to add to that. I can't tell you because I didn't do those measurements. I think based
on extrapolating from those numbers, I would think that it would be within 8% to 12% if I went. The
only direction really that is a problem is this direction. Everything in this direction and continuing
this way if we have photos is
for all practical purposes, flat. When you go in this direction, no matter what you do, it's going to
be steep. But I would never propose trying to build on something that steep. And in addition to that,
I'm sorry. I did not mean to interrupt. I'm sorry. I did multiple times ask for clarity as to how to
measure this cross-section. And I proposed exactly this and was said, that sounds OK. Go for it. Please
submit that.
And that is what I've done. I found out yesterday that I was supposed to actually have measured 50 feet
in every direction. But it was something that I was trying my utmost to do responsibly the entire time.
As you understand it, you sought guidance and were told 25 feet was OK. I said it's 50 foot cross section
such as this that I have drawn. Right. And I went with that information, with that to clarify.
I was told, OK, go for it. That would be helpful. But I was not aware until yesterday that that would
be this big of an issue. Right. Well, it's a fairly big issue to me. Because if this 100 by 100 square
is within the slope, this seems to be
kind of detail that's very important. 50 by 50 is clearly okay. The ordinance says 100 by 100. If I
understand 50 feet on each side, not 25 feet on each side. Is that right, Mr. Brown? So I can read into
the record what the ordinance states. So it says the percent slope shall be measured as a six foot fall
in any 50 foot distance.
And this is eco to right. So it's actually sorry, that was eco one, the percent slope shall be measured
as a seven and a half foot fall over a 50 foot distance. The design should be suited to the lot and
minimize the amount of cut and fill. So it's
in any 50 foot distance measurement and we have worked with people and I do agree that we agreed to
the transit map. We uploaded a PDF stating exactly how to measure within that 50 foot and I agree we
could have been clear to say 50 feet from the structure itself but I do think that basically the ordinance
says we can go 50 feet from any distance and we typically, we do
do 50 feet away from the proposed structure. Would you read that to me again? Sure. The percent slope
shall be measured as a seven and a half foot fall in any 50 foot distance. Okay. But this was measured
in a 50 foot distance. That's correct. Centering on the structure. Centering on the structure and which
doesn't sound like 50 feet away from the structure. It doesn't sound like it should be, it needs to
be a hundred feet to me. Okay.
I understand how my confusion is cleared up and I appreciate the reading that ordinance to me. I have
no further questions. Does anybody else? We'll turn to the public now and if anybody speaks in opposition,
you'll have an opportunity to return.
Thank you. Are there members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this petition? If so,
please come to the podium or raise your virtual hand online. We see no one. Are there members of the
public who are in opposition to this petition? If so, please raise your virtual hand or come to the
podium. No? Okay, so we return to us for further discussion and or a motion.
I'm satisfied that the building site, while it's in an area of steep slope, is not itself in violation
of the ordinance. As to whether it's 25 feet from the center of it or 25 feet from the edge of it, given
this evidence, it sounds like the area in question, this little flat top, is going to be
So I guess I don't think it's, the evidence it seems to me seems to establish that it doesn't violate
the proposal, doesn't violate the ordinance, but that's not much of a decision. So I think I'm going
to move to grant the variance
in light of the evidence as to the actual extent of the slope. Which variance? Yes, both variances.
One for the reason set forth in the staff report. The other, the second one, for the reason that the
general slope requirements are
of concern, but the specific slope in this area alleviates that concern for me and makes me comfortable
voting in favor of this. Mr. Daley. This is an interesting conundrum I find myself in. I don't know
that I either understand what you're offering or whether or not I just disagree with what you're offering. However,
I believe that variances 2582 alpha and 2582 bravo should be approved because while listening to testimony
and the staff's presentation, I found practical difficulties even referring back to
the definition in Chapter 850 of the Code of Practical Difficulties that all four criterion of those
appeared to be met. So I agree, but for different reasons, and I don't know that I can't. If you want
to make the motion saying that, I will second it. Does Mr. Morris have anything to add? Excellent question.
His insight is always appreciated, and I don't know the technology well enough. Yeah, I do not really
have anything additional to add. Thank you. I do agree that practical difficulties have been met.
All right. I will motion, if I may have the floor, Madam Chair. I will motion that variances 25-82 alpha
and 25-82 bravo both be approved.
based on demonstration of practical difficulties. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve both
VAR-25-82A, which is the eco area to one acre contiguous buildable area, and VAR-25-82B, which is the
eco area to 15% slope encroachment, both to chapter 823. A vote yes is a vote to approve both variances.
Jeff Morris?
Yes. Pamela Davidson. Yes. Margaret Cummins. Yes. Skip Daly. Yes. Guy Lofman. Yes. Motion is approved
five to zero. OK. Thank you, Mr. Willard. And good luck to you. And we appreciate your coming before
us and sharing with us your proposed plan and working with our staff. Thank you. OK. Happy New Year.
OK. Thank you, Mr. Willard.
Yes, thank you. Thank you. Yes. Yes. I think we're finished, right, Jackie? It was old business.
Did that get? The old business was published as continued. So that one has been continued and possibly
further continued. But we'll keep you updated. The only thing I wanted to mention as part of our reports
is that at the next meeting, we'll be voting on chair and vice chair. So please think about that.
Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
Have a good night, and if there's a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. Okay, nobody objects. I don't
think so. No. Okay, thank you. Bye, Jeff.